Skip to main content

tv   Book TV  CSPAN  March 15, 2010 1:00am-3:00am EDT

1:00 am
>> guest: i didn't say everybody. >> guest: but it's something to be mindful of. >> guest: i didn't say all. >> host: do you think something is in vetted in the very means of our society that is in grave and that we must continue to work every single day, every hour, every minute, every second, every breath .. ..
1:01 am
>> some of the past and they
1:02 am
are not tied down the baggage 81 that is good but they need it should not forget the baggage was carried and it could not occur comeback. all we had to do is remember the shooting at the museum by a play was a dress rehearsal. we have a dba freedom is not free. we have to fight for every day. >> coming back to the play i think it is important is to have people see and have this conversation between the two. after the play do you have the opportunity for young people and others do engage in dialogue?
1:03 am
>>guest: this is her play she attends almost all of the performances and have a q&a point* following, a discussion with the audience what did they think or what did they agree or disagree and what about the historical lessons? she is in her element. >> as a frustrated third grade teacher i wrote a for young people the same age as an frank. we have to get to their minds and hearts while they are young by the time they get to be our age they are so shaped and formed in is so hard. but eroded for the children because they are the future and should be less burdened. when i wanted to make the point* earlier i can say black people, younger people who say in their thirties and forties with children they are aware of the history but did not want to
1:04 am
burden their babies. it is like saying there really is a santa claus and everything is alright but there is not and racism persists stand at some point* parents have to determine when they share this burden of history the societal problem the cancer we have called racism in our society. jim-crow has just been redesigned and morton something else we called it something else when we were kids know it is something else. >> writing a book called the new jim crow in the age of colorblind is a very powerful book talking about the incarcerations hall as opposed to segregation. >>host: it is in a different for but it is still there. >>guest: we have a lot of work to do to seven we must continue to work for or what to thank you for your great work.
1:05 am
you're great leadership. provision. your inspiration. i have enjoyed being with you here. continue to tell the story. continue to be a one america for we are one family, the american family. >>guest: you keep working on capitol hill to make that a reality. >>guest: thank you, john.
1:06 am
>> before john comes up by want to thank all co-sponsors unopened approaching the vote as a thank-you to "the nation" magazine from the national association of black journalists, national association of hispanic journalists and a special thanks to the folks that c-span for being here to film tonight for booktv. thank you for that. when i got to know about john nichols and 89 i was an editor at in chicago i went to journalism school and we have discovered these books that had something to say about independent journalism and the structure of the media and i liked it so much started to get myself looked around chicago basically giving thought john nichols and t9 rap which i guess i look at a harbinger of my future. i remember one day in particular there were a
1:07 am
bunch of independent journalist and i went into the history of the media and in walks in the back of the room john nichols and said i think you are giving my speech. [laughter] so this time i will let him give his speech himself and turn the microphone over to john. [applause] >> thank you. that a great tragedy of trying to get people talking about issues eventually they start to do it better than you do. i am very honored to be on the platform with a grade two is a far better spokesman that i will ever be. i also want to give an initial shout out for a reason that they know what other people may not. there pressure over the years for an accounting
1:08 am
within newspapers to make sure there really is not just talking about diversity better reality of that has provided us with much of the information that we use to monitor the employment in newsrooms. was not for the work of the unity of the organization we would know for less about the decline of journalism million redo. they have been terrific players in revalue them agree deal also all the other sponsors per car want to thank both for joining us on the panel also thank you for coming out tonight progress we travel around the country we have a wonderful experience of discovering that there really are a tremendous number of people who care
1:09 am
about these issues. from pack to rooms in seattle and portland and san francisco and western massachusetts, boston, new york city, the one reality we come back to again and again that while people may differ with regard to what they want to be done about this crisis, there is less and less debate about the fax of the crisis. that is a special understanding that we have to be conscious of because this is not a crisis that will be sold by journalists by other journalists or a crisis of newspaper editors and other newspaper editors, or media conglomerate. no solutions. we're really problems with their microphone. i hope it is working for you. this is not a debate about
1:10 am
journalism, newspapers or media part of this is a debate about democracy. and the fundamental underpinnings of the american and democratic experiment. because this american experiment is referred to as an experiment because there really began as such. the founders of this republic did not know how to shape a democracy. that is because it had not been done before. they needed to think long and hard about what was necessary to make a democratic experiment function. and it is significant that they're understanding from the recent struggle against the monarchists said it is all about information because king george and his minions gathered information
1:11 am
into the cells and control information and they constrained the debate with the purpose to maintain their power. jefferson, madison, washingt on, all founders of the experiment. they understood one thing. if we were to begin the march toward democracy we have to be alarmed with information borough so we became passionate about that concept about how we created not just a promise of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but the reality of free speech and a flourishing, vibrant come a diverse, challenging and dissenting free press that would inform the great mass of americans about the issues of the day that would tell them about the affairs
1:12 am
of their community, their colony or state and ultimately their nation and the world itself. this was essential if people were to be their own governors. and it required fundamental new ways of thinking. we take, as are guiding points in this exploration of the issues we will talk about common issues of journalism and democracy. to quotes, one from james madison "essentials author of our constitution and he said "of popular government without popular information without a means to acquire it is better prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both. now the people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. an essential understanding that citizens a virtual not
1:13 am
monarchs are kings but citizens must have the information. it must be easily accessible through a free press. the second quote from thomas jefferson i told with the rebellion now and again is a good thing and is necessary and the political world as if the physical. when jefferson spoke of rebellion, he was not talking about getting pitchforks and running up to the capital and might not even talking about others. when he spoke of rebellion he was talking about re-examination, of challenging that which you know, . to see if it was working or if the democratic experiment, the american experiment was functioning. he invited us to come back every 20 years to say is this working? hero distance away about the structures and the democracy and said keep asking questions and all be satisfied it is working just
1:14 am
because somebody told you long ago that it was. let's take this challenge up. let's rebel against false assumptions and rebel against the claims that if we just stand back somehow everything will work out. book at our current circumstances and ask whether the people are being formed with the information, the knowledge, that would allow them to be their own governors. is the media's system working? functioning? television news as any reporter will tell you is a crisis. insufficient funds funds, collapsing of newsrooms of many markets around the country we literally have communities now where one newsroom goes out and gathers the news than they sell the news to
1:15 am
the other news room so you have it insufficient news stories. what are repeating? a lot of whether. i and stand it is important to this week. [laughter] but next week he will still get seven or eight minutes of whether and then it is 50 degrees northeast and 51 nw. than a lot of the crime and then you are too fat and that is your exercise tips and the package of television news for the evening. radio, said wonderful medium giving as wonderful opportunities to communicate is easily accessible. the telecommunications act allow them to own as stations as they want. one does. clear channel has 1200 reduce stations smaller companies owned literally hundreds of stations and we have seen a dramatic decline in the number of radio
1:16 am
journalist in this country veteran reducing tens of thousands of on-air personalities over the past 15 years. a consolidation without improvement. where does that leave us? there is still the newspaper news room. that will see us through the great generator of news that a great collector of original information. last year 140 newspapers across united states close down and stop publishing. major daily newspapers in seattle, albuquerque, tucson , a denver "christian science monitor" run from daily publication to a weekly publication and a reasonably good online presence. other papers to have disappeared have not made that level of a leap. the great tragedy is on that closed down but the one that is open that are rapidly
1:17 am
degenerating. i imager lessons i was 11. every month newspapers have laid off more than 1,000 employees. every month for the last two years of losing roughly 30,000 newspaper employees broke the editors tell us there are 46,000 people working as a newsroom journalist and it sounds like a good number but if you're losing, they also provide support, distribution, but if we lose that, there is not a lot of time this is an urgent moment in its decline and i know someone will say the internet will set us free. by one to the internet to set us free i have been lobbying since 1999 and have
1:18 am
been surfacing this as long as i can take it. and sing there 46,000 newspaper employees there are roughly 2300 making a living today as online working journalists producing original content in the journalistic context losing 1,000 employees per month her to thousand 300 make a living online every couple months we take out the online press and not filling the void. it is opening but not being filled just as the crisis was not created by new media it will not be solved yearly buy new media per car want to close off some of my remarks by saying i know the numbers can sound like statistics. lot of numbers but take it down to a real community of baltimore merrill lynch. new study asked how do we
1:19 am
get our news? where is it generated? where are the original news stories developed? if you look at every place all the different sources say are pretty liberal with a good definition newspapers, radio station, a television, much wetter blogs on my new sites it was not a perfect steady but they did a pretty good luck and found of the primary source of original news in the community was "the baltimore sun" but it produces 33% less new stories today than 10 years ago and 70% less than 20 years ago so there is a void. surely new media is filling the void. what is the breakdown? how many comes from old media?
1:20 am
ninety-five% of the stories stove generated by old media. new media is not so great because people not the they don't want to do but don't have the resources to go out and gathering news. the avoid opening and not being fell but where are we getting our original news. it does not go away and it is still out there. to give us some good information, there are two ways that news comes to us. it can come from the people may be to a journalist, you should cover that story. there is a toxic waste dump and we think the kids are getting sick the schools are not doing a good job you should cover a story. the journalist reports then he goes to the mayor, then the corporation and says ask questions and demand answers
1:21 am
then that bubbles up from a grass-roots. the other news comes from somebody at the top recess the discussion i want you to have and here's what i want you to talk about how great i am and what a good governor or ceo of i am or great school system i am running in here are the parameters. that is public relations. but they call it news. how much of the news in the study came from grassroots and how much from power? fourteen% from a grass-roots and 86% from the power. 86% telling us what we should talk about. is that just baltimore? it could progress we went across the country we've found the same story variations in the city after city after city and the research tells us the ratio
1:22 am
of public relations people to working journalist is about four /1 fort public-relations for everyone working journalist. 30 years ago the ratio was 1.2 /1. think about what has happened. a dramatic explosion in managed discussion and debate has a dramatic decline in journalism. you end up with something that would make george orwell hit his head. i wrote 21984 i thought big brother would be watching you i was wrong. it turns out you are watching big brother 24/7 around-the-clock news channels that the view a package information with very little journalism, a lot of weather and tips and crime stories but not much journalism.
1:23 am
that is a crisis we are in. we would be remiss if we told do that that is always bad of course, this country was founded by a journalist named tom paine. he wrote to call the book called the crisis and ritchie are geared we ought not to see a crisis at the end of our opportunity our ability to shape american experiment that is everything we would hope and wanted to be but as a moment of opportunity and challenge and a call to action. tom payne said we have in our power to begin our world over again and we believe in americans still have the power to begin the world over again but what we have to do is recognize our journalism is a crisis and collapsing, avoid is opening. that kuwait will be filled. the question is will be filled by new journalism as
1:24 am
vibrant and powerful angeles molly democratic and its instincts and values as we need but with public relations? to answer that question and that man by my co-writer, robert mcchesney to this stage. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you all very much for coming out tonight. it is a pleasure to be here. the way this issue is framed briefly the crisis we have is not the crisis of journalism but the collapse of the independent news rooms, the number of journalism, the communities across this country no one is covering them at all only wonder to people we have an entire generation of young people view has basically given up hope to happen full employment. the crisis is our inability
1:25 am
to take the crisis understand it and addressing and a policy manner and how we think about the crisis is a real issue. that is why john and i wrote to this book. for most of us i suspect all of us, i was taught there was one fundamental component that was the government should never sensor private media or regulate journalist third get in the way of the news media. that is what freedom of the press is all about. jon and i believe that. we believe strongly we have to strengthen the core value that is only half of the amendment. the other half equally important to the founders and in the minds of the supreme court is this. the first duty of the democratic state is to make sure you have a fried press. the first duty to have the
1:26 am
independent monitoring the government if you don't have the independence freedom of the presses hollow because to say they want to be censored. the first duty of a free society is to make sure the independent free press said it -- exists. those are not contradictory but were complementary in the same people were the strongest advocates simultaneously. this has been disguise the last 125 years because advertising came in from virtually nowhere to have the primary promise of journalism and gave us the illusion the market would give us all of the journalism we need. we might quibble over the
1:27 am
quality with quantity would be covered and they receive anywhere between 6100% of revenue from advertising. it will remain but we will have less of it last year "the new york times" have less money from advertising ban on advertising sources that one that routinely got 80% of advertising those-- are gone. noway are back where the market will not provide all of the journalism. going back to a first hundred years of american history what did they do? i can say what they didn't do pergolas helps the rich guys make money we get lucky and have a democracy but if not we will see who wants to play king. they instantly gravitating without discussion we have to make sure we have the journalism. they regarded it as a public good. in economic terms it
1:28 am
captures how we should understand journalism it is something society needs and people love but the market cannot generate successfully. national defense, public education, national parks all the areas the government plays the crucial quarterback role to make sure they exist in the payment is done successfully. of the founders for the first 75 years instituted extraordinary a much richer and their first press system that would have existed otherwise. we documented these in the book and they are extraordinary progress history most are not familiar with but to give some sense, we went back to use coastal records as a percentage of gdp the federal government has the exact same percentage of g gdp how much do we have to
1:29 am
spend? the figure was $30 billion. this was an enormous investment made by our right to create what would not have existed otherwise. when we reread dollar a the freedom of the press decisions from the supreme court there were some seven or eight decisions 1920's third 1980's, what struck us was the relationship progress and a government. 1945, 1971, potter stewart is a structural the man to make sure the state exists. you cannot monitor state power the government has to make sure it exists. that is the interpretation of the first amendment. we would argue when i read those words the first time and there was a graduate i did not pay attention because we have a press system. that was covered. wall street business
1:30 am
community gives us all of the journalism that we need. now when you read the same words, as we see huge sections of government life being covered at all, if you believe postured -- potters to order hugo black natalee condones subsidies and policies to promote independent journalism but requires them. by the last issue and a subsidy the government might make to support independent journalism will deteriorate and oftentimes the examples that come up that once you go down a slippery track you're very quickly going to be on the road to cambodia, but uganda, the most heinous governments are dry doubt if this is the only place you can go want to get on the treacherous path. like how the founders called
1:31 am
unsuccessfully for the first 100 years. we share the concerns of a government involvement if there was anything for your to say, i am going down pretty fast we are highly sensitive but the relevant issue is where we always looking at two cambodia? and stalin's soviet union? why not look at the democracies free political parties, liberties and economies and see what they're doing? maybe we can learn more from germany, netherlands, france and finland to figure god negative and cambodia. of the discovery's look at those countries there is an exception to every major democracy be stationed in europe and north of us to those of much larger sum sum
1:32 am
subsidizing media and journalism a much larger sum a factor in a rare of 40 or 75 times. but we also discovered the largest per capita subsidies in the world and i had never seen any secret police were no one had been beaten up it seem like a free society and some say how can that be? we went back and looked at the economist magazine and a judge the rating of the most democratic countries and the six leading countries based on the most honest government and civil liberties and freedom were the countries that have the heaviest press subsidies and the world norway britain and germany japan. we were low on the list may be that do so because they crushed the private media
1:33 am
that did not exist and they brainwash the people. looking at a group called freedom house from the private commercial news media and it was set up to monitor communist governments and dictatorships briefs every country how they are from government harassment and freedom house be which there rankings and guess what? the 6 feet private media is from the air the same countries have the least amount to censorship the event the united states is ranked 21st. the point* is when redid this research became clear that this was a solvable problem. we don't have to imitate them or our ancestors but clearly we can come up with the subsidies to give the independent news media with journalists bumpy with each
1:34 am
other to cover all the things we have to cover to have a systematic functioning like people knew what was going on and held accountable for what they do. we can do it that is where we have to get the debate very quickly wrote the book to get the entire point* to that point* how can we solve it? to understand if we sit back and wait for technology or billionaires to realize that it will be a long wait and frankly we don't know maybe 20 or 30 or 40 years from now the technology will bear lasalle and there will be a new magical system of financing journalism on by that nobody knows that will give us hundreds of thousands of working journalists covering and our communities but it will not happen very soon. we don't have five or 10 or 1520 years to kill as a node journalism sound that is taught an option. we have to move quickly and
1:35 am
rapidly and come up with policies and pre-independent journalism we don't have a moment to raised. thank you. [applause] >> we will do little panel discussion which i will be moderating. let's talk about the notion of subsidies. i am curious these come up quite a bit in the book and how to structure them, i am curious if there are places you are running a private enterprise that is expanding as they understand it if it readership and labor force and it is successful in that respect. can you imagine this scenario in which there are things that are high fixed
1:36 am
cost that you can imagine some kind of subsidy structure that would untether in the effective way or you would not want to be a part of? >> my worry is not the subsidies in general but they tend to be fashioned to be reinforced with weak existing structures one of the problems we're having right now is there is a funding crisis. as the model changes from television journalism to on-line journalism and the revenue stream 41 does not translate exactly to the other hand we have not quite figured it out for we have advertising that used to work in print try to be adapted online and it does not work and fit and people have not figured out the new stream. if you start subsidizing the
1:37 am
wrong thing you freeze the innovation in that model you bake into the concrete the old way of doing things. one of the things that i always talk about is part of what is happening is the notion of what news is, is changing anybody who works on line of day-long understands that in the old -- you had to physically have somebody that was at the state court house in order to do these things. but today when everybody has a way to write the impression of their own backyard what we do is channel the flow of the conversation and data more than journalism. the best example i can think of is with the riots in iran and they had thrown all
1:38 am
journalist out of the country and all of the twitter screens came through and of a sudden you are searching through them and provided the data that just about every journalist worked on. he provided at and that was a whole new model for how information it gets out there would not happen that affirmation other people who were classically trained journalist would not have gone back. [laughter] there is more information and people who sort through it and figure out what is going on in new ways and i do worry that there is something in the libertarian model of letting the market have its way to reward people that are successful i know in france they
1:39 am
subsidize the bloggers and frozen in the 1998 world. if they can pass to be carefully thought out i cannot tell you one thing i could think of that would ground that. >> i am curious of the experience one of the things that i think is so interesting is the pr to reporter ratio. to the degree that when people lose jobs they are going into pr. i know myself as a reporter is someone they used to be up khalid negative show up in an interview and there they are on the other side of the table. >> it depends how many
1:40 am
people of we have to support for a free. what we see happening with journalist is those who need money right away have to work and what they were cat and to translate easily into public relations but to a bunch of different other things. at the same time on this side but they may do journalism being paid for it about. that is a big issue you can reinvent yourself for one thing that they struggle with when they don't have a job if they're used to being in the mainstream newsroom is figuring out there journalisjournalis ts because they don't have a job. one of the things this crisis does is forces those
1:41 am
of us to abated mainstream news room to accept the fact you don't necessarily need the trappings of the mainstream news room to consider yourself as a journalism and to accept the fact that they should understand media policy and the implications that have and on your on job. that is something that many people are still struggling with at our convention for example, rebates agree said enough and we are focused on the multimedia skills everybody needs them to manage jobs and repay $30,000 and why five the whole convention center and told everybody to bring their laptops 500 people showed up they showed up banded training because that is what they needed to do. >> i want to play devil's advocate, john. one is the notion that when you say disintegration as a
1:42 am
journalist is less journalist. is it conceivable that it takes a lot fewer people to build a car than it did before. and that product of technical innovation means less hours per car and the same is true in 1980's. so that it is possible there is some account of less journalist. and the other thing is the question of professionalism. what are the virtues or what unique virtues does professionalism have over and above rock time? there are two distinct questions. one is that nobody, of fewer and fewer people are paid full time but they are doing amateur journalism. what do you see as the value we need to preserve in terms
1:43 am
of profession? >> i have never accepted the term professional journalists i think it is a terrible term. they get their freedom to racked or should have as citizens point*. we happen to be citizens who may be at the time and have the resources to spend bereday going out and asking questions but that is who we are not an elite class and i don't ever wanted to be that that is where the most destructive ways to think about what we do. everybody can be a journalist. no question but whether people have the time and energy to go out and do what needs to be done. i listen to james commons because i know it will be subsidize i was work for private media and there
1:44 am
probably always will. but i also know that i can cover national politics and that is rare where there is a lot of energy and resources that go to it. what i worry about is the grass-roots and the communities in this country that to have very middle of journalism taking place it be a professional or suspend or otherwise because the newspapers have abandoned them and there are some that have been genuinely abandoned, particularly and low-income neighborhoods, rural stretches of the country country, there are absolutely false trying to fill a void no question but it is unreasonable to suggest a single mom, a two kids and two jobs 11:00 at
1:45 am
night start covering her community. this is not a reasonable demand to make and the expectation does the work. rethink the way it ultimately we measure this is to ask ourselves how was it going? how was it working? and chicagoland alike i town has a good journalistic tradition but a tremendous loss of journalism jobs recently pages had an election a couple weeks ago in an election for governor and u.s. senate and some statewide powerful offices and nominated the other 10 it governor's job the day after the election journalists figured out had been accused of beating his wife and pulling a knife to the prostitute girlfriend and it is bad stuff than a
1:46 am
lot of money goes to bed places. he turned out to be not the most outstanding is a december accord is not be saying this but the journalist that remain journalist in chicago saying this crisis of journalism but of politics the we are covering crime, news you can use, am i shoe size, we did not have enougheoe,e assumptions that the blogosphere would do the job and we have a real world example of what happens when we just up back and do not fill the void. this is not to say, i do not want to assault innovation or do anything. anything that slows down anybody to practice journalism any way they wide and the best way they can but somebody who has been practicing journalism some
1:47 am
way or another that the resources are not there into many committees in this country and we see that play out and the politics and economic life and other places. >> redo have the experience were a lot of people who have the ability to do so continue to ring journalism while teaching or going to school or deciding or figuring out how they can make their own business and their own web site, etc., etc.. do have a entrepreneurial journalism and i think that is healthy because it makes journalists think differently about their role of journalism and society really like to have more of the other people so in the blogosphere and the internet we do not replicate the same mistakes the bf may forever
1:48 am
like a lack of diversity or lack of different voices at the table. >> one of the things i was read about happening is it is somebody that toes line reflects the interests of the powers that the more than journalists of color or myself, a progressive, and people who are not part of the elite power structure than we operate at a competitive disadvantage because they are subsidized and we are not. it tends to prop up something that is low working and keeping something else from getting financed. with the online ad revenue side, local ad revenues are higher and they found the mattress center or whatever it is gets more bang for
1:49 am
their buck and a national advertiser running a national campaign. slowly the weekly's the village voice, boston phoenix, they are starting to build out the online financial model and community for people that are evaluating journalism do not feel that in the first place. if they do a lot of food journalism, sustainability stuff and what they do is journalism as well. if i felt there was some place to put money it would be building a broad band to make sure everybody gets access because i don't think that mothers should have to work all day then come back and practice journalism at night but in the ideal world she wanted to she could do that and we reimbursed for it.
1:50 am
people, more people who want to be able to do so they should have that access to finance themselves more than the entities that tend to siphon off when given. >> i quite agree with a lot of the common things that john and i have the conclusion of journalism we don't describe what it should look like what they should do because we believe very much like chain we are in a moment and it has to be determined through practice and we should not try to force it into a box ahead of time. we will have a situation ultimately will there will be arranged of different styles of journalism that really merge but what i am concerned on the basis of our critique is even in the best case scenario we study these charitably is there
1:51 am
were on the advisory board we just know see the numbers adding up to where we need to be and to make it easier to survive i think the concern of the policies over another the first thing you have to be concerned with you have to emphasize when we look at the relevant pool of countries it is amazing norman -- holland and japan and norway and sweden and germany have secured it out. they are not a police state societies with news and information and journalism. one of the things in the buckweed said let's have subsidies similar to the founders the postal subsidy case in point* that made the abolitionist movement possible. that was the entire movement
1:52 am
in the northern half could not survive they relied on that postal subsidy but it also went to papers. every paper qualified we're interested in subsidies but nobody says you qualify and you don't. there is objective criteria. you can do that. it is not impossible. we have spent deflated by our politics we have lost the fact that you can governor own lives. it is ironic we cannot governor sells and we cannot solve this problem. one other point*, we're big believers and libertarians additions. you go through several ideas and it is a way to funnel public money with nine public ventures online and they decided they give the money you're not. that it is always all the territories are vouchers.
1:53 am
they can go to anyone. locking in some bureaucracy that is bill 10 the crony party is not the only option. finally john sent me a note to that if somebody is listening to this discussion if they like the existing media system they think commercial news media has been hitting it out of the park 30 years we have to give their resources to get back up to the plate we have done a very bad job in explaining our view. we think the commercial media system is a crisis of its own doing and the commercial reason is the key reason for more than the technology of the internet. we have no plans for any subsidies to go into any commercial enterprise whatsoever we make that quite clear. although as i say that, we
1:54 am
have debates with friends of ours that think they should. that is a debatable issue. we don't think it should not be discussed. some believe they make the case it should go to some types of commercial enterprises. let's have that debate. but that is where it should be. we are trying to open it up. >> camera talk about advertising? i thought the notion of the revenue model we come to expect as the law of gravity is that is how you pay for journalism has evaporated in the long sweep it is a weird contingent accident and 1.where but i cannot figure out where all the advertising money went. seriously. why isn't the case that as jane will attest to ad revenue rates online are a paltry faction of what they are in print and the there has been a decline.
1:55 am
i don't get where that money went? >> there is a great book people should read called the death and life of an american angeles. [laughter] that goes into this at some extent but also a book called chaos by garfield and is done by a great return on advertising. advertising it was not like people said i have this business and i got a bunch of money and i could pocket door build a condo for going vacation and i think there will do some advertising so i can employ journalist. that was never the concept. advertising saw a vehicle or a platform that worked so
1:56 am
rick got on board and historical a it was an accident and have been to sustain journalism and that was great. you open the newspaper and reading about franklin roosevelt or laguardia or the lindbergh kidnapping then i can buy some underwear that is cool. [laughter] you go to the next page. television came along an equally great. i could walk into the kitchen but i don't want to get up soar will watch this ad. when the internet came along in the digital age, remember we say many of the declines in newspapers started long before but it accelerated the crisis because advertising founded new ways to get people. i don't think it will be hunting to support journalist online either. in fact, writing about this
1:57 am
brilliantly, they found it so much easier to get straight to you. and one quick way to understand this easiest way to figure out remember reading about laguardia and roosevelt and under? as somebody buys and adam the nation's website and they go and say i love what jane hamsher roche and the under rather ad i will click on that. it will take you off the site to another site and when you get to that others cite the person who designed the place so engaged do that you will never go back to where you came from. so the end result is that we created a place where advertising lives someplace else and encourages you to come visit and does not encourage you to go back. during the book we
1:58 am
interviewed some top new sites and interviewed the people that does the guardian web site in england and it is so good a mark -- americans are among the top leaders because they actually get some news. it is doing a terrific job they said you are doing such great work it is full of news and around the world and culture and commentary and it is fabulous and he must we trucking them money to the bank and he said last year we only lost 30 million pounds. i said that is a bummer you must have a plan and he said every year rehire one new guy. [laughter] to give us the plan how we will make money on line. he said for years i would hire the guy or the woman who came along with what sounded like the best idea. at the end of the year they would say sorry.
1:59 am
now i will not hire anybody that says the have an idea because nobody does. >> i am curious about getting too much of the details of the business side of firedog lake i am in a sense my advertising does not support what you do. >> it does not. a lot of the hour activities are supported by a donations and online support for what we do. the online advertising model i don't think will get any better. you're looking at the situation where good will has a virtual monopoly on and advertising and it is the can to when you were growing up there was one billboard in 10 know everybody has a billboard. it used to cost to 100 now you can have $541.
2:00 am
as advertising gets more technologically sophisticated you can reach the target audience whose 16 year-old girls on valentine's day as the ability to target becomes greater it may turn around but i have a feeling it is not the 250 or $300 / box we're used to seeing because it does not have the same sort of or drive your attention the same way by opening a magazine for a few keep going back to that you're still in the magazine. it does not work. people are experimenting with different models and one of the interesting things people have talked about is that the hour people and the four per pr
2:01 am
people to the one journalist but if you talked about that more common as a model more globally, there is basically somebody packaging content and doing research and putting it to the duralast to have to put out the stories of the day on line what you're finding is people or organizations or entities the big corporations are nonprofits or whoever and be the real source or beat there receptacle. for example, i was on up and all and they asked us what we blogs read every day and we as are the same we don't read the blogs. rereading open secrets all day long that has the open
2:02 am
campaign finance data. they have never reported refiled and sliced and diced and when i go to write a story about seven by igo see how much money he has taken from the pharmaceutical industry last year $149,000. and a lot more from the banks and the ability to do that i can have one line in a story in five seconds that would have taken somebody one month to researched 10 years ago. that so the ability if you think of fdr in the larger with the organization and you want to be out there the warehouse for data that makes people like ourselves to have more to get the story out then a journalist
2:03 am
working on it people need to start thinking but information in different ways and how it is sliced and diced and2y because the old model of i speak, you listen does not really cut it anymore. . .
2:04 am
2:05 am
2:06 am
2:07 am
2:08 am
2:09 am
2:10 am
2:11 am
2:12 am
2:13 am
2:14 am
2:15 am
2:16 am
2:17 am
2:18 am
2:19 am
2:20 am
2:21 am
2:22 am
2:23 am
2:24 am
2:25 am
2:26 am
2:27 am
2:28 am
2:29 am
2:30 am
2:31 am
2:32 am
2:33 am
2:34 am
2:35 am
2:36 am
2:37 am
2:38 am
2:39 am
2:40 am
2:41 am
2:42 am
2:43 am
2:44 am
2:45 am
2:46 am
2:47 am
2:48 am
2:49 am
2:50 am
2:51 am
2:52 am
2:53 am
2:54 am
2:55 am
2:56 am
2:57 am
2:58 am
2:59 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on